Re: [RFD] uevent handling for subchannels

Cornelia Huck
2020-06-29T18:59:12Z

On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 12:43:16 +0200
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote:

<It's been some time, but this topic has recently popped up again.>

> On Mon, 27 Apr 2020 12:10:17 +0200
> Peter Oberparleiter <oberpar@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > On 23.04.2020 18:20, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > > On Thu, 23 Apr 2020 16:52:24 +0200
> > > Vineeth Vijayan <vneethv@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > >> Then we could also change the way ccw_device_call_sch_unregister()
> > >> works, where
> > >> the subchannel-unregister is happening from an upper layer.
> > >
> > > Hm, what's the problem here? This seems to be mostly a case of "we did
> > > I/O to the device and it appeared not operational; so we go ahead and
> > > unregister the subchannel"? Childless I/O subchannels are a bit useless.
> >
> > Hey Conny,
> >
> > sparked by your proposal, Vineeth and myself looked at the corresponding
> > CIO code and wondered if things couldn't be done in a generally
> > better/cleaner way. So here we'd like to get your opinion.
> >
> > In particular, as it is currently, a child-driver (IO subchannel driver,
> > vfio-ccw, etc.) unregisters a device owned by a parent-device-driver
> > (CSS), which feels from a high-level-view like a layering violation:
> > only the parent driver should register and unregister the parent device.
> > Also in case no subchannel driver is available (e.g. due to
> > driver_override=none), there would be no subchannel ADD event at all.
>
> Doesn't the base css code generate the uevent in that case?

Just checked again, the code in css_register_subchannel() should indeed
take care of the !driver case. But still, even better if we can get rid
of it :)

>
> >
> > So, tapping into you historical expertise about CIO, is there any reason
> > for doing it this way beyond being nice to userspace tooling that
> > subchannels with non-working CCW devices are automatically hidden by
> > unregistering them?
>
> We always had ccw devices behind I/O subchannels, but that has not been
> the case since we introduced vfio-ccw, so hopefully everybody can deal
> with that. The rationale behind this was that device-less I/O
> subchannels were deemed to be useless; I currently can't remember
> another reason.
>
> What about EADM, btw? CHSC does not have a device, and message does not
> have a driver.

Just checked EADM; it does not have a child device.

>
> >
> > Removing the child-unregisters-parent logic this would also enable
> > manual rebind of subchannels for which only a different driver than the
> > default one can successfully talk to the child device, though I'm
> > unaware of any current application for that.
>
> Yes.
>
> Let me think about that some more (no clear head currently, sorry.)

Ok, so I've resumed the thinking process, and I think getting rid of
the "no I/O subchannel without functional device" approach is a good
idea, and allows us to make handling driver matches more similar to
everyone else.

What changes would be needed?
* The whole logic to suppress uevents for subchannels and generate one
later will go. (Touches the various subchannel driver, including
vfio-ccw.)
* ccw_device_todo() can just unregister the ccw device, and there's no
longer a need for ccw_device_call_sch_unregister(). (IIUC, this also
covers setting disconnected devices offline.)
* As the I/O subchannel driver now needs to deal with cases where no
ccw device is available, the code for that needs to be checked.
(That's probably the most time-consuming task.)

Userspace should be fine with I/O subchannels without ccw device,
that's nothing new.

Does that sound reasonable?